lord of flies

Lulz. This is funny as I do not think that you fully understand what you are talking about. Lulz why don't you enlighten me. "Lulz," good job counteracting my examples of David Ashenfelter and Al Jazeera. Hilarious.

So, I called up my contact at Obsidian (his identity will remain a secret), and I was talking to him about the delay, and the history of the Soviet Union in the late 1920s. It's sad (all them dudes died except the Stalinists), but also interesting, because the early Soviet Union actually attempted to push "indigenous" (Ukrainian, Georgian, Kyrgyz, Kazakh, etc.) culture and national identity, both to edge out other possible things (pan-Islamism, pan-Turkism, et cetera) and to allow their cultures to "develop" through the stages of human civilization up to where Russia was (perceived to be). Anyway, the delay: he was saying that basically they're redoing the whole plot. Now, it takes place in an alternate universe where Lenin's Testament isn't suppressed, and as a major consequence the United Front tactic is adopted instead of the Popular Front tactic. The PCF and the PCI take over France and Italy in the aftermath of WW2. It's a world with a showdown, one where either side has a legitimate chance of winning. Your character, Michael Thorton, is a CIA dog - but he's been given a significant amount of leeway in his behavior. Will he side with the CIA, or will he do the right thing and aid the worldwide revolution? Your adventures on the still-thriving black market in Moscow, the beating heart of the Soviet State, your work in suppressing (or aiding) the communist revolutionaries in Saudi Arabia, the bloody course of your activities in the Italian capital of Rome, and of course your assassination mission in the Republic of China (but will you side with the USA-backed military junta, or good old Wang Hongwen?). So there you have it. The reason why the game was delayed. Mods, don't you dare engage in revisionism and lock this thread! That's an order, from Comrade Zinoviev!

Yes. You do realize that calling Trotsky the "would-be Napoleon of the Russian Revolution" is more-or-less openly admitting you're a Stalinist, right?

Quoting myself since apparently nobody noticed this last time.

Who would you rather see at the head of the USSR following Lenin's demise: Trotsky or Bukharin?

United States strategically bombs Al-Jazeera offices in Iraq, discusses bombing their headquarters in Qatar. The United States is also fining David Ashenfelter five thousand dollars a day, and may arrest him for not revealing a source. He reported irregularities committed by a former federal prosecutor in relation to a terrorism-linked case. The US government also uses its own agencies to disrupt media and expression, such as Operation Mockingbird and COINTELPRO. There is no outstanding reason to believe it has stopped, or that if it has stopped it is because of principles. Just for example. The United States ranks fairly high domestically on these sorts of lists, but absolutely atrociously internationally for things like bombing the **** out of Al Jazeera.

Ah, look, a couple of children that don't know about my Trotskyism.

Does not compute. Stalin acted in self-defense, most of the people he purged were counter revol- Oh **** it, I can't do it.

lol no. Without the Mississippi basin, maybe. If Russia could become a world superpower via planned industrialization, so could the United States. Yeah, because the rich all voted for third parties, I guess. Because the rich are all retarded. lol you have no ****ing idea about anything. Progressives believe that class conflict can be gently corrected, without the removal of classes; Marxists, on the other hand, believe in the complete destruction of the class system. The rich can pay more, and if you think rich people work harder for their money than poor people, you're retarded.

Since... forever? Beyond the brief period of economic neo-liberalization in the 20s, the highest tax bracket generally paid over 70%. lol yeah antisemitism, racism, and slavery are just like taxing the rich. Except the abolition of slavery and creation of a racially equal nation were pushed for by progressives, whereas progressives recognize that extreme class struggle is inevitable without serious measures taken against it (i.e. the creation of a strong social safety net for the "wage slaves"). Do you not understand how society works or something? Do you think that if you don't tax the rich, nothing bad will happen?

Raising taxes on the rich is perfectly natural, under various pre-Reagan administrations, the highest tax brackets paid over 70% of their income. It has nothing to with socialism. Socialism is about killing the monster that is capitalism; this sort of milquetoast progressivism is about keeping the monster fed, but less than might otherwise happen. Plus, it doesn't matter since he hasn't actually followed through.

No, he isn't. Don't talk about things you clearly don't understand.

By the way, Purkake, I've long since put you on ignore. I assume you posted some dumb .gif or something in place of actual content?

Having played the game, I would say that Purkake is a terrible poster. Also, there's not a really good "communist" option, though that sort of makes sense, since Great Man posturing is the home of the "liberal" bourgeois historians, not us Marxist-Leninists. You can, however, play as an anti-imperialist or an imperialist - the proverbial boot stamping on the face of all mankind forever.

yo so i've been ignoring this game and i got a real quick question. what makes it "dark fantasy," exactly?

Oh yeah, I forgot to add: What do you do?

You make your way along southward with the rest of what remains of the platoon. As your hearing recovers, you can hear the sound of your comrades-in-arms being slaughtered by the guerillas. Kniri, Bodgers, and a few other of your peers are all that\'s made it to regroup, which has been mostly ignored by the Riliki guerilla fighters. \"Kniri,\" Bodgers says, \"can you make contact with East Kawkar Fort?\" Kniri nods, and sits down to meditate. After a few moments, he gets up and speaks, \"They can spare no forces. We will have to make our own way back to base.\" As you make your way back to the fort, otherwise unmolested, one of your comrades, Mibbur, hands you a small, black leather booklet. He motions for your silence, and speaks, \"Read it; if you wish to speak afterwards about its contents, feel free.\" You finally arrive at East Kawkar Fort. No one else from your platoon has made it back, leaving you inclined to believe that everyone else is dead or has deserted.

Why does your game suck so bad? Huh? Why? Just answer my question. It's not a difficult question or anything... just... why does it suck... so... bad?

My point was that to call Pearl Harbor "unprovoked" is silly and ignorant, like calling Austria-Hungary's invasion of Serbia "unprovoked," or Russia's subsequent declaration of war on Austra-Hungary "unprovoked." It was a natural consequence of imperialist competition over China - the United States wanted to maintain trade relations with one of its oldest and best partners, whereas Japan wanted control of greater east Asia. Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive strike on a nation which was developing WMDs and preparing itself for a war. Japan was an atrocious imperialist nation, no doubt - but it did not attack the United States for no reason. Those weren't open conflicts against the Soviet Union. lol yeah their soldiers just shot our soldiers, they weren't "open conflicts." No, they were open conflicts. They were simply wars of limited theatre, established by major world powers, akin to what had happened for centuries.

Yeah, they wanted war, but not with the United States. The US purposefully and knowingly provoked Japan into attacking it. You can argue that the provocation was justified, but you cannot argue that Japan's attack was unprovoked.

Thanks for the back-handed compliment. Actually, I frequently add personal attacks in amongst my valid arguments. I find they give them a little zest. No, my opinion is quite well informed. There is a long and proud history of men ****ing other men in the military, and it has historically only helped unit cohesion. If these soldiers are ****ing other men who are not in the military, then it obviously cannot have any worse inherent effect unit cohesion any worse than soldiers ****ing women who are not in the military.

Yep, in the midst of a shooting war precipitated by an unprovoked attack that was followed by invasions of US soil, invasions and subjegation of allies, and attacks on US interests all over the world. Just in case you happened to forget that little nugget. lol. no. You dropped a nuclear weapon on civilian targets in a country which had killed virtually no civilians of your own. Your country literally killed more of your own Chinese citizens by mob violence than the Japanese army killed out of military attack. It was not an "unprovoked" attack, unless you are a vapid child who doesn't realize that the United States had made a considered, thought out decision to embargo the oil of Japan, knowing that they would not be able to easily find other sources and be forced into a war they didn't want.

Only bourgeois poetry must be purged, but most pre-Revolution poetry is, by definition, bourgeois.

I'm going to blow your mind: Everything that Obama's doing, he isn't doing out of cowardice or a desire to be liked. He is doing it because he wants to. Every choice he has made has been his choice, made not on bland squeamishness but instead on lack of character.